Animal welfare must be more than a marketing tool

Trade associations should develop standards for commitment

Interview with the CEO of the Institute for Sustainable Management (ifnm) in Bonn, Dr. Michael Lendle to understanding and requirements of sustainable livestock farming

?: Dr. Lendle, the ifnm has just held a much-noticed event on the subject of "sustainable animal husbandry" in Hanover. What does this term actually mean?

dr Michael Lendle: By sustainable animal husbandry, we fundamentally understand animal-friendly handling of farm animals. However, in order to avoid disputes about the definitions of “species-appropriate” or “animal-friendly”, we speak of forms of husbandry that focus on the welfare and health of the animals.

?: What is the difference between sustainable animal husbandry and legally anchored animal welfare?

dr Lendle: Sustainable animal husbandry in terms of animal welfare goes beyond the existing requirements of animal welfare. I would like to emphasize that we in Germany are already among the leaders in this regard in a global comparison. But animal welfare also means animal health and forms of husbandry that meet the requirements of the livestock. Here one part causes the other.

Health is an essential prerequisite for their wellbeing, even for animals. So first of all it is important to ensure that the animal's health is ensured. Second, the conditions in which the animals are kept must be such that they can move and behave appropriately. This applies, for example, to the run or the design of the area in which the animal moves. These are also criteria that determine whether an animal is comfortable.

Nowadays we know enough indicators that can be used to objectively determine whether an animal is largely comfortable. Take, for example, the piglets whose tails are docked to prevent the pigs from biting each other's tails. However, this behavioral disorder is considered a sign that the animals are not feeling well. The docking of the beaks of chickens that are intended for laying hens is done so that the animals do not peck at each other when they are held closer. So it is not a sign of animal welfare if chickens peck each other's feathers. In addition, there are a number of other indications that experts can use to determine whether animals feel comfortable in their keeping. So one could say: animal welfare is measurable.

Sustainable animal husbandry means above all animal welfare, and this includes both animal health and animal-friendly housing and care.

?: In your opinion, what are the shortcomings with regard to sustainable animal husbandry in Germany?

dr Lendle: Animal welfare, or the term animal welfare, is for some who take it upon themselves to be an end in itself. This applies to certain organizations from which one gets the impression that they are less concerned with the animals than with themselves. However, this also applies to certain manufacturers or dealers who claim to be particularly committed to animal health and animal husbandry, but who ultimately only adorn themselves with this label. The idea of ​​animal protection often reveals itself as pure self-interest and less as a serious commitment.

So the question arises, what am I pursuing with sustainable animal husbandry? Is it really about the welfare of the animals or should the term be used as a marketing tool? For example, by highlighting special features in advertising that are rather questionable in our understanding of animal welfare. The latter is to be rejected. On the other hand, we are in favor of giving those who are clearly committed to animal welfare when it comes to keeping animals the opportunity to make these efforts public.

?: Does this mean introducing a central state animal welfare label instead of the company's own labels, the criteria of which are incomprehensible?

dr Lendle: We want the consumer to be able to recognize when a food manufacturer is doing outstanding work in terms of animal welfare by going well beyond the minimum legal requirements. The only question that arises is how this can be conveyed unequivocally to the consumer. This does not require a separate logo or label for every type of animal husbandry and certainly not every manufacturer.

Instead, we at the ifnm advocate a voluntary commitment at the level of the professional associations. These should agree on a generally applicable code with basic standards, which are based on the Animal Welfare Act and the recognized guidelines for animal hygiene and animal health. In a letter of intent, the animal owners and animal processors sign to adhere to the agreed basic requirements. This is monitored by the professional associations or institutions commissioned by them. There shouldn't be a label for that.

Anyone who believes they want to offer even more sustainably produced products based on their own claims and those of consumers with regard to animal welfare should be given the opportunity to point this out with their own label. For this we do not need a new flood of rules that determine what is particularly sustainable.

?: Against such voluntary self-commitments, the objection is often that compliance with them is difficult to control and that they would ultimately only lead to more effort and higher costs ...

dr Lendle: I believe that a lot of effort is being made at the moment to go public with trivialities in the areas of sustainability, animal welfare and animal welfare and to try to distinguish yourself accordingly. This money could be saved if general basic standards for sustainability in the

Would define animal husbandry. Additional services in this area would then also become more credible as "added value". In my opinion, the bottom line is that such a system would involve little effort, both bureaucratically and financially.

?: How do you want to prevent sustainable animal husbandry from being misinterpreted as a pretense or marketing instrument, as is the case with so-called "greenwashing"?

dr Lendle: For this we need more intensive information of the public. The consumer needs to know what animal welfare actually means. He must also get a more realistic picture of how food is produced today. Once the consumer is in a position to judge products in a more differentiated way, then the manufacturers stand out on their own, who are deceiving and putting on a cloak with regard to sustainability and animal welfare that is not theirs.

In addition, the respective industries should free themselves from the black sheep in their ranks even more specifically than today. Then the accusation of “greenwashing” also loses credibility. Whether a pillory on the Internet is necessary for this, as in the case of "Lebensmittelklarheit.de", I consider to be questionable. It is important, however, to sort out the blenders and deceivers so that blanket accusations can no longer be made against entire industries.

?: In terms of credibility, do you consider a state logo comparable to the organic logo to be superfluous?

dr Lendle: We don't need a state to intervene in economic processes if the industry commits itself as described. If, however, there is no voluntary commitment at the professional association level in the next few years, then it must be considered whether animal welfare standards are not implemented nationwide or for the entire EU and ideally even worldwide within the framework of the WTO negotiations. Because it's about the animals.

?: What contribution can you make from the Institute for Sustainable Management to promote sustainability in animal husbandry?

dr Lendle: From our point of view, it is particularly important that scientific findings find their way into practice as quickly as possible. We want to contribute to this by intensifying the dialogue between science and research on the one hand and practice on the other. This also includes practical criticism of the scientific approach. Ultimately, both sides should work their way up to an optimum in terms of animal welfare. In this structure, the Institute for Sustainable Management sees itself as a neutral platform that functions as a network to bring together research and practice in order to promote animal welfare and welfare in a sustainable manner.

?: Does that mean you take on a moderator role?

dr Lendle: Let's call it a mediator role with a lot of personal opinion. We also strive to bring everyone involved in the food value chain together for open discussions. In the area of ​​animal food, this applies not least to the dialogue with animal welfare and consumer organizations. Because confrontation in animal welfare does not help anyone, least of all the animals, which it should actually be about.

Source: Bonn [ifnm]